Procles the Carthaginian: a North African Sophist in Pausanias’ Periegesis Juan Pablo Sánchez Hernández
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Procles the Carthaginian: A North African Sophist in Pausanias’ Periegesis Juan Pablo Sánchez Hernández LL THAT WE CAN READ of Procles are two fragments provided by Pausanias in his Periegesis in the second Acentury A.D. Pausanias calls him a Carthaginian from North Africa, but his name, Procles, and his father’s, Eucrates, are Greek; Pausanias does not state a title for Procles’ work. The first fragment comes in an ethnographical digression about the wild beasts of Libya, the second in a comparison between the Hellenistic kings Pyrrhus of Epirus and Alexander the Great (FHG IV 483–484, frr.1–2): Not far from the building in the market-place of Argos is a mound of earth, in which they say lies the head of the Gorgon Medusa. I omit the miraculous, but give the rational parts of the story about her. After the death of her father, Phorcus, she reigned over those living around Lake Tritonis, going out hunt- ing and leading the Libyans to battle. On one such occasion, when she was encamped with an army against the forces of Perseus, who was followed by picked troops from the Pelopon- nesus, she was assassinated by night. Perseus, admiring her beauty even in death, cut off her head and carried it to show the Greeks. But Procles, the son of Eucrates, a Carthaginian, thought a different account more plausible than the preceding. It is as fol- lows. Among the incredible monsters to be found in the Libyan desert are wild men and wild women. Procles affirmed that he had seen a man from them who had been brought to Rome. So he guessed that a woman wandered from among them, reached Lake Tritonis and harried the neighbours until Perseus killed her; Athena was supposed to have helped him in this exploit, be- ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 119–132 © 2010 Juan Pablo Sánchez Hernández 120 PROCLES THE CARTHAGINIAN cause the people who live around Lake Tritonis are sacred to her.1 Procles the Carthaginian indeed rated Alexander the son of Philip higher on account of his good fortune and for the bril- liance of his achievements, but said that Pyrrhus was the better man in infantry and cavalry tactics and in the inventing of strat- agems of war.2 (transl. W. H. S. Jones) Scholars who have discussed Procles have seen in him a Hel- lenistic historian of the third or second century B.C. The most detailed arguments for a third-century date appear in a Konrat Ziegler’s footnote in H. Schaefer’s RE article. He points out that there were Greek authors writing in Carthage at that time3 and Procles may have written his work in Greek because Carthage was strongly influenced by the western Greek col- 1 Paus. 2.21.5–6: τοῦ δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ τῶν Ἀργείων οἰκοδοµήµατος οὐ µακρὰν χῶµα γῆς ἐστιν· ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ κεῖσθαι τὴν Μεδούσης λέγουσι τῆς Γοργόνος κεφαλήν. ἀπόντος δὲ τοῦ µύθου, τάδε ἄλλα ἐς αὐτήν ἐστιν εἰρη- µένα· Φόρκου µὲν θυγατέρα εἶναι, τελευτήσαντος δέ οἱ τοῦ πατρὸς βασι- λεύειν τῶν περὶ τὴν λίµνην τὴν Τριτωνίδα οἰκούντων καὶ ἐπὶ θήραν τε ἐξιέναι καὶ ἐς τὰς µάχας ἡγεῖσθαι τοῖς Λίβυσι, καὶ δὴ καὶ τότε ἀντι- καθηµένην στρατῷ πρὸς τὴν Περσέως δύναµιν—ἕπεσθαι γὰρ καὶ τῷ Περσεῖ λογάδας ἐκ Πελοποννήσου—δολοφονηθῆναι νύκτωρ, καὶ τὸν Περσέα τὸ κάλλος ἔτι καὶ ἐπὶ νεκρῷ θαυµάζοντα, οὕτω τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποτεµόντα αὐτῆς, ἄγειν τοῖς Ἑλλησιν ἐς ἐπίδειξιν. Καρχηδονίῳ δὲ ἀνδρὶ Προκλεῖ τῷ Εὐκράτους ἕτερος λόγος ὅδε ἐφαίνετο εἶναι τοῦ προτέρου πιθανώτερος. Λιβύης ἡ ἔρηµος καὶ ἄλλα παρέχεται θηρία ἀκούσασιν οὐ πιστά, καὶ ἄνδρες ἐνταῦθα ἄγριοι καὶ ἄγριαι γίνονται γυναῖκες. ἔλεγέ τε ὁ Προκλῆς ἀπ ̓ αὐτῶν ἄνδρα ἰδεῖν κοµισθέντα ἐς Ῥώµην. εἴκαζεν οὖν πλανηθεῖσαν γυναῖκα ἐκ τούτων καὶ ἀφικοµένην ἐπὶ τὴν λίµνην τὴν Τριτωνίδα λυ- µαίνεσθαι τοὺς προσοίκους, ἐς ὃ Περσεὺς ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτήν. Ἀθηνᾶν δέ οἱ συνεπιλαβέσθαι δοκεῖν τοῦ ἔργου, ὅτι οἱ περὶ τὴν λίµνην τὴν Τριτωνίδα ἄνθρωποι ταύτης εἰσὶν ἱεροί. 2 Paus. 4.35.4: Προκλῆς δὲ ὁ Καρχηδόνιος τύχης µὲν χρηστῆς ἕνεκα καὶ διὰ λαµπρότητα ἔργων ἔνεµεν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ Φιλίππου πλέον, τάξαι δὲ ὁπλίτας τε καὶ ἱππικὸν καὶ στρατηγήµατα ἐπὶ ἄνδρας πολεµίους εὑρεῖν Πύρρον ἔφασκεν ἀµείνονα γενέσθαι. 3 He cites Xanthippos, Philinos, and Silenos, writing between the Pyrrhic Wars (280–272 B.C.) and the First Punic War (264–241 B.C.): at H. Schaefer, “Prokles,” RE 23 (1957) 179 n.1. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 119–132 JUAN PABLO SÁNCHEZ HERNÁNDEZ 121 onies as early as the sixth century.4 Momigliano conceived of a Polybius-like career for Procles of Carthage in the second century B.C.: he “wandered between Greece and Rome,” and addressed his works to his Roman public, writing not only from his eyewitness experience in Africa but also from the most appealing context of Rome, where he reported seeing an African wild man; his name was a sign of Hellenization rather than of Greek origin and his career would have been similar to that of the Carthaginian philos- opher Clitomachus (originally named Hasdrubal) who came to Athens in 146 B.C., became head of the Platonic Academy in 129, and wrote books dedicated to prominent Romans.5 This article will argue that Procles the Carthaginian was not a Hellenistic historian, but a sophist contemporary with Pau- sanias, and an example of the great intermingling of nations in this epoch. The idea of Procles being from the second century A.D. is not completely new: K. Wernicke in 1884 suggested that he was a writer of the second century rather than Hellenistic,6 but he had little impact on subsequent scholars.7 Wernicke’s main argument was that the military glory of Pyrrhus was a popular image for writers during the Roman 4 Especially in the period 410–307 in the struggle for the possession of Sicily; Paus. 10.8.6–7, 11.3–4, 18.7. See V. Krings, “Les lettres grecques à Carthage,” in Cl. Baurain et al. (eds.) Phoinikeia Grammata, lire et écrire en Méditerranée (Liège 1991) 649–668; P. Krings, Carthage et les grecs 580–480 av. J.-C. (Leiden 1998) 27–32. 5 A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge/ New York, 1975) 5–6. 6 K. Wernicke, De Pausaniae periegetae studiis Herodoteis (Berlin 1884) 101– 102. 7 Wernicke’s idea is cited only by H. Hitzig and H. Blümmer, Pausaniae Graeciae Descriptio I (Leipzig 1896) 585 (ad 2.21.6): “Wernicke dagegen … glaubt ihn in der Beginn des zweiten nachchristlicher Jahrhunderts setze und aus I, 12, 2 schliessen zu dürfe, sein Buch habe den Titel ἔργων ὑπο- µνήµατα getragen.”. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 119–132 122 PROCLES THE CARTHAGINIAN Empire.8 Indeed, while the topics of the two fragments are common in many periods of Greek literature, they are especially popular in the surviving literature of the Roman period: Fr.1, Libya and its marvellous creatures: The tradition of events and characters attributed to Libya began with Herodotus (4.145– 195). But the scientific writings of Aristotle and his school had the most influence on poets, historians, and paradoxographers9 from the Hellenistic period onwards in the development of the popular idea of Libya as a land of natural rarities. This tra- dition evolved into the treatment of this topic in two surviving declamations of the imperial period, the Libykos of Dio Chrysostom and the Dipsades of Lucian.10 Fr.2, σύνκρισις of Alexander with Pyrrhus: Texts of Roman date emphasized the fortune of Alexander’s exploits and his fame, and Roman rule was represented as a continuation of his em- pire.11 Pyrrhus’ similarity to Alexander the Great was ad- dressed by Roman-era authors writing about his fascinating personality.12 Pyrrhus’ Memoirs (ἔργων ὑποµνήµατα) were 8 Wernicke, De Pausaniae 101. See Liv. 35.14, Plut. Pyrrh. 8, Luc. Ind. 21, and nn.11–13 below. 9 καὶ λέγεται δέ τις παροιµία, ὅτι ἀεὶ Λιβύη φέρει τι καινὸν (Arist. Hist.An. 606b, cf. Gen.An. 746b). The same idea also in paradoxography (Antig. 11, 60b; Apollon. 38) and paremiology (Λιβυκὸν θηρίον· ἐπὶ τῶν πολυτρόπων καὶ πολυειδῶν καὶ ποικίλων, Apost. 10.75; Πολυθήρου γὰρ οὔσης τῆς Λιβύης καὶ πολλῶν ζώων συνιόντων καὶ ἀλλήλοις ἐπιβαινόντων, ἐξηλλαγµένα ἀποτελεῖ καὶ σύµµικτα ζῶα Diogenian. 6.11). See in general G. Ottone, Libyka. Testimonianze e frammenti (Rome 2002) 1–33. 10 Dio Chrys. 5.5, Luc. Dips. 1.1. Lucian did not visit Libya (ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἐπέβην τῆς Λυβίης τὸ παράπαν εὖ ποιῶν, 6); he knew this literary tradition through a major author, Nicander of Colophon (ταυτὶ οὐ µὰ Δία πρὸς Νί- κανδρον τὸν ποιητὴν φιλοτιµούµενος, 9). 11 About the imitatio Alexandrei see for example L. Lanza, Roma e l’eredità d’Alessandro (Milan 1971); U. Wilcken, “Zur Entstehung der hellenistischen Königkultes,” in E. Wlosok, Römischer Kaiserkult (Darmstadt 1978) 218–253; M. Sordi, Alessandro Magno tra storia e mito (Milan 1984); J. M. Croisellle, Neronia IV: Alejandro Magno, modelo de los emperadores romanos (Brussels 1990). 12 Especially Plutarch (Pyrrh. 8.2–3, 11.4) but also Dionysus of Halicar- nassus (Ant.Rom. 20.10), Diodorus (22.11–12), and Pausanias (1.13.2–3). The Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 119–132 JUAN PABLO SÁNCHEZ HERNÁNDEZ 123 widely read13 and his deeds were a commonplace in military and strategic works of the first and second centuries and in sophists’ writings like Lucian’s Hippias, Pro lapsu, and The Ig- norant Book Collector.14 Wernicke identified these fragments as excerpts from a col- lection of Facta et dicta memorabilia.15 In his opinion, Pausanias, who in writing Book 1 seems to have done a fair bit of reading on Pyrrhus in historical synopses (mentioning the ἔργων ὑπο- µνήµατα in 1.12.2) such as Procles’, could excerpt them in a couple of spots where he thought that they were pertinent: in Argos and Mothone.